The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The IESG has received a request from the RTP Media Congestion Avoidance > Techniques WG (rmcat) to consider the following document: > - 'Congestion Control Requirements For RMCAT' > <draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-05.txt> as Informational RFC > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2014-08-13. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. I feel obliged to point out the "Requirements Language": ] The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", ] "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this ] document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119]. ] The terms are presented in many cases using lowercase for ] readability. I really don't understand the intent here; but a plain reading would say that every "may" in the text (including two in the boilerplate) is a 2119-may. This seems unlikely. I strongly recommend that this wording not be used. It would be far better to state that the 2119 meaning _only_ applies when the terms are UPPERCASE. I realize that the WG will have to review which lowercase-musts are intended as 2119-musts: there would appear to be eight cases which _might_ be intended as 2119-musts; but I seriously doubt that more than 10% of the lowercase-mays were intended as 2119-mays. -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx>